Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›1197 »

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

Dolphin posted:

Michigan...

I just wanted to verify some communication things when talking to the Police...

When picking up a vehicle (towed) from the Police, am I legally required to provide the Police with any information whatsoever other than my name and address? For instance, if the vehicle was uninsured and the Police asked who drove the vehicle to the location from which it was towed, would I be required to provide an answer? If I'm not actually present in the vehicle and haven't been pulled over, could I be required to show proof of insurance on the vehicle?

Well, if the cops are asking you if you have insurance when you're about to get into a car right in front of them and drive away, maybe, just maybe, you should have insurance

# ? Mar 18, 2010 17:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 16:33

Dolphin: Dec 5, 2008; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

JudicialRestraints posted:

1. get insurance you idiot
2. I don't know for sure about Michigan, but if I were a cop having towed a car without insurance would be enough to give me probable cause/reasonable suspicion to believe that the owner didn't have insurance and drove it. They're either going to charge you or you aren't. Don't be an idiot next time.

It's not my car. The vehicle owner only told me he stopped paying the insurance AFTER the car was towed--but since I need to go pick the car up, I just wanted to make sure I was within my rights to not answer questions about who drove the car when I went to the Police. I opened an insurance policy on the car, but the effective date is today, car was towed yesterday.

Incredulous Red posted:

Well, if the cops are asking you if you have insurance when you're about to get into a car right in front of them and drive away, maybe, just maybe, you should have insurance

Haha, yeah I'm not about to hop in and drive out of a police station in an uninsured car.

# ? Mar 18, 2010 17:36

JudicialRestraints: Oct 26, 2007; Are you a LAWYER? Because I'll have you know I got GOOD GRADES in LAW SCHOOL last semester. Don't even try to argue THE LAW with me.

Dolphin posted:

It's not my car. The vehicle owner only told me he stopped paying the insurance AFTER the car was towed--but since I need to go pick the car up, I just wanted to make sure I was within my rights to not answer questions about who drove the car when I went to the Police. I opened an insurance policy on the car, but the effective date is today, car was towed yesterday.

You're not required to ask any questions a cop asks in any position where you might be a defendant.

That said, not answering questions is more likely to get you into a rough spot.

Out of curiosity, how are you going to move the uninsured car without driving it?

# ? Mar 18, 2010 17:45

Dolphin: Dec 5, 2008; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

JudicialRestraints posted:

You're not required to ask any questions a cop asks in any position where you might be a defendant.

That said, not answering questions is more likely to get you into a rough spot.

Out of curiosity, how are you going to move the uninsured car without driving it?

I just insured it myself today.

# ? Mar 18, 2010 20:12

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Dolphin posted:

When picking up a vehicle (towed) from the Police

The guy taking your money at the impound lot probably isn't a cop. All he'll care about is whether you've got the money, and whether you can prove it's your car. Maybe he'll ask if you've got insurance.

Dolphin posted:

It's not my car.

That might be a problem. Call ahead and find out what documentation you'll need to establish that you're allowed to pick up the car.

Fake Edit:
So what you're really asking is, "how can I pick up a car from impound and not have to answer questions about the crime that happened involving the car?"

# ? Mar 19, 2010 01:20

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

joat mon posted:

The guy taking your money at the impound lot probably isn't a cop. All he'll care about is whether you've got the money, and whether you can prove it's your car. Maybe he'll ask if you've got insurance.

That might be a problem. Call ahead and find out what documentation you'll need to establish that you're allowed to pick up the car.

Most states with insurance laws require that lots ask for proof of insurance before they release a car. If they don't they can get in a lot of trouble and lose all tows from police. If it is a government lot, there will be no way around this.
Some places may let you tow it out, but you may have to surrender the plates first.

If you don't own the car, at minimum, you'll need a signed letter from the owner authorizing release. This may not be enough in many places, you should call ahead.

JudicialRestraints posted:

You're not required to ask any questions a cop asks in any position where you might be a defendant.

Yes and no.
While you can refuse to answer, when stopped and you can't or won't provide proof, that is a crime.
Further, they are free to not allow the car to leave without proof.

nm fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Mar 19, 2010

# ? Mar 19, 2010 01:34

Wide Area Network: May 6, 2009; Connecting the world...FOR EVIL

The situation in a nutshell:

Hector (friend of a friend of a friend) is originally from Columbia. He is also gay, which may not sound relevant, actually is.

He is not a citizen of the United States, but is here temporarily. I am not entirely sure of the details of his stay in the US. His father was diagnosed with cancer recently, and he wants to travel home to visit him. Due to more circumstances I don't understand, he would not be able to return to the US if he leaves. Hector offered Veronica $10,000 in exchange for marrying him to allow him to return to the US after he visits his dad. They would then annul the wedding once he returns to the US.

Veronica agreed to the scheme, and they have asked my girlfriend to be a witness to the marriage. Veronica and Hector can do whatever they want, in my opinion, but once they drag my girlfriend into the situation, I feel the need to understand possible consequences.

My concern is probably unfounded, but I want to understand the ramifications of their scenario. Is it illegal to skirt immigration law by doing this? Would my girlfriend be liable if this was investigated? All their friends know that Hector is gay and marrying a woman would probably be a big red flag that something is up.

# ? Mar 19, 2010 13:11

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Wide Area Network posted:

Hector offered Veronica $10,000 in exchange for marrying him to allow him to return to the US after he visits his dad. They would then annul the wedding once he returns to the US.
...Is it illegal to skirt immigration law by doing this?

Yes.

Wide Area Network posted:

Would my girlfriend be liable if this was investigated?

Technically, yes.
If she lied to investigators about it, yes.

Hector needs to see a good immigration lawyer - There's a good chance that a sham marriage is either unnecessary or won't help (unless his dad is going to be able to hold on for 3-6 months)

# ? Mar 19, 2010 14:33

King of the Cows: Jun 1, 2007; If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?

Wide Area Network posted:

Is it illegal to skirt immigration law by doing this?

Maybe. I'm not an immigration lawyer, but I do know they conduct an interview with the immigrant and his "wife" to ascertain whether or not it's a genuine marriage. This Boston-area immigration lawyer thinks it's a really bad idea:

http://www.massachusettsimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2009/03/your-biggest-immigration-mista-1.html

quote:

Many people in Boston and throughout Massachusetts mistakenly believe that marriage to someone with U.S. citizenship is a relatively easy and fast way of obtaining permanent residency or green card status and other immigration benefits. Stop by City Hall in Boston, pick up your marriage certificate and you are automatically entitled to a green card. And it is believed that once you get married, a work permit will arrive soon after you put your immigration petition in the mail.

Despite this persistent fantasy, a green card through marriage often proves to be difficult path. For starters, it can be extraordinarily hard to convince U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) at the Boston District Office that your marriage is truly based on a real and bona fide relationship. The immigration authorities will be expecting you to produce extensive documentary evidence that you and your spouse have a shared life that involves love and companionship and that your relationship is not just a sham to obtain permanent residency. At a bare minimum, you can be sure that USCIS will scrutinize all Massachusetts public records to confirm that you and your spouse truly live together in marital union.

Once you get to an immigration interview at USCIS Boston District Office, you may encounter what is called a Stokes interview. If this occurs, an immigration officer will interrogate you and your spouse separately with an identical set of probing, personal questions. In this game, there are no wrong answers. But if the answers that you and your spouse provide don't match, your immigration case will be denied.

Every so often, I'll have an initial immigration consultation in my office in Boston where the potential clients tell me, quite frankly, that their marriage is bogus and then try to enlist my help as an immigration lawyer with the marriage-based green card process. This would be a kin to a criminal lawyer advising someone how to rob a bank! Furthermore, aside from the obvious ethical considerations, an immigration petition based on a fake marriage is very unlikely to be approved by USCIS. The reality is that I have enough difficulty getting USCIS to approve petitions based on marriages that are truly genuine.

Anyone thinking of trying to get a green card based on a fake marriage would do well to remember a line from Mickey Rourke's character in the film Body Heat, which I once heard paraphrased by a Boston Immigration Judge: "when you commit a major crime, you got fifty ways you can screw up, and if you can think of 25 of them you're a genius, and, counselor, you ain't no genius." No matter how smart you think you are, USCIS is smarter. If you can come up with 15 ways to prove that your sham marriage is genuine, USCIS will probably be looking at dozens of other pieces of information, any one of which will blow your cover.

The likely result is that you'll get caught and your immigration application will be denied. But a denial is not your only risk. Marriage fraud is a specific ground for deportation. It gets worse: under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a fraudulent marriage finding may bar the approval of a subsequent immigrant visa petition. To understand why this penalty is particularly harsh, let's imagine, for instance, that after the petition based on fraud is denied, the would-be immigrant gets divorced and remarried to another U.S. citizen. This second marriage is a real marital relationship. This couple continues to live together for 10 years in utter marital bliss and have 5 beautiful U.S. citizen children together. In this scenario, the marriage fraud penalty would generally stop this person from ever obtaining a green card. Immigration waivers for marriage fraud are extremely limited.

And it could be worse! U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents investigate marriage fraud and prosecute U.S. citizens and foreign nationals for criminal violations. Severe penalties for marriage fraud include sentences of up to 5 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.

In short, when it comes to marriage fraud and a green card, the risk of getting caught is high and the punishment severe. It's blatantly illegal. And it's unethical. For these and other reasons, my best advice as an immigration attorney is to steer clear of marriage fraud.

# ? Mar 19, 2010 14:54

Wide Area Network: May 6, 2009; Connecting the world...FOR EVIL

joat mon posted:

Yes.

Technically, yes.
If she lied to investigators about it, yes.

Hector needs to see a good immigration lawyer - There's a good chance that a sham marriage is either unnecessary or won't help (unless his dad is going to be able to hold on for 3-6 months)

Update: Veronica decided not to do it. Crisis averted, thank god. Thanks!

# ? Mar 19, 2010 15:12

JudicialRestraints: Oct 26, 2007; Are you a LAWYER? Because I'll have you know I got GOOD GRADES in LAW SCHOOL last semester. Don't even try to argue THE LAW with me.

nm posted:

Yes and no.
While you can refuse to answer, when stopped and you can't or won't provide proof, that is a crime.
Further, they are free to not allow the car to leave without proof.

Pretty sure you can refuse to answer questions, but they just have nasty institutional penalties (i.e. refusing to take a breathalyzer = losing your license in a bunch of states).

That's why I said in the next sentence that not answering could land you in trouble. For minor crimes it's arguably better for you to tell the truth and take your licks.

# ? Mar 19, 2010 19:47

The Rokstar: Aug 19, 2002; by FactsAreUseless

Anyone know what the laws/regulations are regarding sending produce in the mail across state lines? I live in California and would like to send some oranges in the mail back to my family in Indiana but have no idea what the rules are on that.

# ? Mar 20, 2010 21:09

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

The Rokstar posted:

Anyone know what the laws/regulations are regarding sending produce in the mail across state lines? I live in California and would like to send some oranges in the mail back to my family in Indiana but have no idea what the rules are on that.

quote:

Fresh fruits and vegetables are nonmailable unless presented in a dry (not dried) condition. Other perishable foods that are capable of easily decomposing or that cannot reach their destination without spoiling are nonmailable. Packaging must be strong and securely sealed as required in DMM 601.1�8.

You're good. Unless you're shipping into states like Hawaii or California, you shouldn't have a problem

# ? Mar 20, 2010 21:43

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

The Rokstar posted:

Anyone know what the laws/regulations are regarding sending produce in the mail across state lines? I live in California and would like to send some oranges in the mail back to my family in Indiana but have no idea what the rules are on that.

There are companies that send fruit from CA everywhere in the US. I doubt there are any prohibitions, but you might call:
(800)ASK-USPS
before you go to the post office.

# ? Mar 20, 2010 21:45

excellentcoffee: Nov 1, 2007; Phantom

Location: Ohio.

I testified before the Grand Jury just recently, but I was read my Miranda Rights before I gave my testimony. Afterward, I was contacted by the prosecutor to go over my statement at their office. I'm now in the process of contacting an attorney.

1)Have I already given up my Miranda Rights by testifying before the Grand Jury? Meaning, if I can not find an attorney and do not agree to the meeting, could that be held against me?
2)What does having my Miranda Rights stated to me in front of the Grand Jury before I testify even mean?

EDIT: I'd like to add, the few attorneys I've contacted have told me that I shouldn't go without them, but right now it's a matter of finding one I can afford.

excellentcoffee fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Mar 21, 2010

# ? Mar 20, 2010 23:55

Loopyface: Mar 22, 2003

excellentcoffee posted:

Location: Ohio.

Why did you testify? Was it a Federal grand jury?

# ? Mar 20, 2010 23:59

excellentcoffee: Nov 1, 2007; Phantom

I was witness to a felonious crime. Dunno what kind of jury it was, I just spoke before a Grand Jury.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 00:03

Alaemon: Jan 4, 2009; Proctors are guardians of the sanctity and integrity of legal education, therefore they are responsible for the nourishment of the soul.

excellentcoffee posted:

I was witness to a felonious crime. Dunno what kind of jury it was, I just spoke before a Grand Jury.

If it was in federal court, it was a federal grand jury. If state, state.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 02:01

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

JudicialRestraints posted:

Pretty sure you can refuse to answer questions, but they just have nasty institutional penalties (i.e. refusing to take a breathalyzer = losing your license in a bunch of states).

That's why I said in the next sentence that not answering could land you in trouble. For minor crimes it's arguably better for you to tell the truth and take your licks.

Remember though that it can be a crime, not just administrative penalty.
For example, in MN, the law states you must be able to provide proof of insurance as well as having insurance. And if you don't provide you're guilty of failure to provide proof. Which 99% of the time is http://www.somethingawful.com/d/forum-rules/forum-rules.phpthe charge because no one says "I don't have insurance" they say "I don't have my card" and then never provide proof to the court.
Similarly, in Minnesota, if you're stopped under suspicion of DWI and the officer has cause to take a breath sample, and you refuse, you're guilty of refusal. Refusal baically acts as if you had one more DWI. A person with no DWIs charged with refusal is treated as if they had their second DWI. Beyond a longer suspension, there is a much longer jail sentence (with essentially mandatory in custody time), higher fines, longer suspension and more.
Al fo this has been upheld by the courts.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 02:32

Solomon Grundy: Feb 10, 2007; Born on a Monday

excellentcoffee posted:

Location: Ohio.

I testified before the Grand Jury just recently, but I was read my Miranda Rights before I gave my testimony. Afterward, I was contacted by the prosecutor to go over my statement at their office. I'm now in the process of contacting an attorney.

1)Have I already given up my Miranda Rights by testifying before the Grand Jury? Meaning, if I can not find an attorney and do not agree to the meeting, could that be held against me?
2)What does having my Miranda Rights stated to me in front of the Grand Jury before I testify even mean?

EDIT: I'd like to add, the few attorneys I've contacted have told me that I shouldn't go without them, but right now it's a matter of finding one I can afford.

Warning - not a criminal lawyer.
1) In a sense, you gave up your Miranda rights by speaking before the grand jury when you had the right to remain silent. However, you still have the right to stop speaking. But the cat is already out of the bag.

2) It means that the cops suspect you of committing a crime.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 03:13

JudicialRestraints: Oct 26, 2007; Are you a LAWYER? Because I'll have you know I got GOOD GRADES in LAW SCHOOL last semester. Don't even try to argue THE LAW with me.

nm posted:

Remember though that it can be a crime, not just administrative penalty.
For example, in MN, the law states you must be able to provide proof of insurance as well as having insurance. And if you don't provide you're guilty of failure to provide proof. Which 99% of the time is http://www.somethingawful.com/d/forum-rules/forum-rules.phpthe charge because no one says "I don't have insurance" they say "I don't have my card" and then never provide proof to the court.
Similarly, in Minnesota, if you're stopped under suspicion of DWI and the officer has cause to take a breath sample, and you refuse, you're guilty of refusal. Refusal baically acts as if you had one more DWI. A person with no DWIs charged with refusal is treated as if they had their second DWI. Beyond a longer suspension, there is a much longer jail sentence (with essentially mandatory in custody time), higher fines, longer suspension and more.
Al fo this has been upheld by the courts.

Gonna be honest, that sounds like a 5th Amendment violation to me. I mean, I can see the cops being allowed to CHARGE you for refusal to provide, but making it a crime to not testify against yourself sounds more than a little unconstitutional.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 04:15

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

JudicialRestraints posted:

Gonna be honest, that sounds like a 5th Amendment violation to me. I mean, I can see the cops being allowed to CHARGE you for refusal to provide, but making it a crime to not testify against yourself sounds more than a little unconstitutional.

Well I promise you, it isn't thanks to implied consent.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 04:33

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

excellentcoffee posted:

Location: Ohio.

I testified before the Grand Jury just recently, but I was read my Miranda Rights before I gave my testimony. Afterward, I was contacted by the prosecutor to go over my statement at their office. I'm now in the process of contacting an attorney.

1)Have I already given up my Miranda Rights by testifying before the Grand Jury? Meaning, if I can not find an attorney and do not agree to the meeting, could that be held against me?
2)What does having my Miranda Rights stated to me in front of the Grand Jury before I testify even mean?

EDIT: I'd like to add, the few attorneys I've contacted have told me that I shouldn't go without them, but right now it's a matter of finding one I can afford.

Elaborating on what Solomon Grundy correctly noted:
1. What you said in the grand jury can be used against you. If you don't go the the meeting or you go and invoke your right to remain silent, your absence or silence at the meeting cannot be used against you.
2. That they suspect you of a crime. They may actually suspect you of a crime, or they may want to put some pressure on you. The DA may well be more interested in you as a witness than as a defendant, and that's why he's bothering to speak with you.

GET AN ATTORNEY

If you absolutely can't hire one, ask the DA if he'll get one appointed for you before you talk to him. If he's interested in you as a witness, he'll figure out a way get you counsel.
The DA is not your friend. (even if his interests may align with yours)

You have a right to remain silent. USE IT.

After you talk to an attorney, he/she may advise you that this is one of those 5% or less situations where it may be to your benefit to talk.

Until them, politely tell the DA that your sorry you can talk to him, that you're concerned about your legal position and that you really need to talk to an attorney first.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 04:58

excellentcoffee: Nov 1, 2007; Phantom

So just to clarify, I do have the right to an attorney before I meet with her, correct? Regardless of me already testifying at the Grand Jury? I just need to ask the prosecutor when I go in for the meeting? Would she have to read me my miranda rights again?

EDIT: Uh, dumb question, but what would the attorney do at the meeting? Just talk to me and tell me what to say?

EDIT 2: I've contacted several different lawyers, and right now I'm looking at the cheapest one I can get (300 to go with me to meet the prosecutor). Could I be making a mistake here and rushing into things, or should I just go for it.

excellentcoffee fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Mar 21, 2010

# ? Mar 21, 2010 12:10

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

excellentcoffee posted:

So just to clarify, I do have the right to an attorney before I meet with her, correct? Regardless of me already testifying at the Grand Jury? I just need to ask the prosecutor when I go in for the meeting? Would she have to read me my miranda rights again?

EDIT: Uh, dumb question, but what would the attorney do at the meeting? Just talk to me and tell me what to say?

EDIT 2: I've contacted several different lawyers, and right now I'm looking at the cheapest one I can get (300 to go with me to meet the prosecutor). Could I be making a mistake here and rushing into things, or should I just go for it.

Have you done anything at all that could be construed as a crime?

My impression is that they Mirandized you in case you incriminated yourself in front of the grand jury. If the prosecutor had actually wanted to charge you with something, you would have been arrested instead of called into an interview with the prosecuting attorney.

YOU SHOULD STILL GET A LAWYER. A good one. They'll make sure that you don't incriminate yourself, inadvertently or otherwise, and will help keep the prosecutor from leaning on you.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 19:12

entris: Oct 22, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Incredulous Red posted:

Have you done anything at all that could be construed as a crime?

He probably shouldn't answer that.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 19:22

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

excellentcoffee posted:

So just to clarify, I do have the right to an attorney before I meet with her, correct?

You have the right to an attorney at any time. You don't have the right to court-appointed attorney at this time. However, if the prosecutor wants you as a witness and not as a defendant, she may well work out a way to get you some representation.

excellentcoffee posted:

Regardless of me already testifying at the Grand Jury?

Yes, regardless. If you think you need an attorney to tell you that you can mail fruit to your mom, you have the absolute right pay for an attorney to answer that question for you. Your right to a court-appointed attorney comes only at 'critical junctures' in a case. In a criminal case, that's only after you've been arrested for /charged with a crime.

excellentcoffee posted:

I just need to ask the prosecutor when I go in for the meeting? Would she have to read me my miranda rights again?

No. She won't be required to give you Miranda warnings, and anything you say to her can be used against you. She's not required because you're not in custody and you're not giving testimony. If she wants to talk to you as a witness, she may be alone. If she wants you as a defendant, she'll probably have an investigator there, too.

excellentcoffee posted:

EDIT: Uh, dumb question, but what would the attorney do at the meeting? Just talk to me and tell me what to say?

An attorney will earn his/her pay before the meeting. First you will pour your guts out to your attorney, and be absolutely truthful. No shading, no minimizing, no dissembling. Then the attorney will call up the prosecutor and say something like, "Janet, I've got a scared kid over here who wants to talk to you about "X" case. What's the big picture? Do you want him, or do you want [the subject of the grand jury]?"
The attorney will then negotiate your giving of information to the prosecutor in a way that keeps you out of trouble (if that can be done - If it can't, he/she will tell you that too, and also tell you to keep your mouth shut.)

excellentcoffee posted:

EDIT 2: I've contacted several different lawyers, and right now I'm looking at the cheapest one I can get (300 to go with me to meet the prosecutor). Could I be making a mistake here and rushing into things, or should I just go for it.

Find an attorney who knows the prosecutor, either personally or by reputation. Find one who will listen to your story and will act as an intermediary between you and the prosecutor; one who will either tell you it's safe to talk to the prosecutor, of that it isn't safe.

Having an attorney who will just tag along is worthless. The attorney has to hear your story first, so he/she knows what to expect to hear. The attorney should ask you the questions the prosecutor will ask you, so you'll both already know the answers to those inevitable questions. The attorney should talk to the prosecutor before hand to find out what she wants out of you. THEN, and ONLY THEN, should he/she go with you to the meeting.

It sucks, but if you pay little, you'll get little.
Or, put another way, it is possible to buy a car for $300, but it will probably suck and will probably leave you stranded somewhere you don't want to be stranded.

Incredulous Red posted:

Have you done anything at all that could be construed as a crime?

That's the prosecutor's call, not some anonymous guys on the internet. You should discuss that with your attorney, not us. You should discuss that with your attorney, not the prosecutor. If your attorney gives you the OK, then talk to the prosecutor.
As titillating as your story might be, you shouldn't be telling us.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 20:22

excellentcoffee: Nov 1, 2007; Phantom

Well, right now this lawyer is the only one I can afford.

The others were 1,000 and up. Then again, they're in another county. We're going to meet thirty minutes before the meeting, and go over the case. Thanks guys, I'm still open to any other advice you might have.

excellentcoffee fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 21, 2010

# ? Mar 21, 2010 20:33

Alaemon: Jan 4, 2009; Proctors are guardians of the sanctity and integrity of legal education, therefore they are responsible for the nourishment of the soul.

Incredulous Red posted:

Have you done anything at all that could be construed as a crime?

Based on my time with the Innocence Project, let me say that you should NEVER rely on this as the deciding factor in your interactions with law enforcement. You may feel that you haven't done anything wrong and so have nothing to hide, but that isn't always the case.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 20:46

dvgrhl: Sep 30, 2004; Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from him?; Soiled Meat

excellentcoffee posted:

Well, right now this lawyer is the only one I can afford. The others were 1,000 and up. Then again, they're in another county. We're going to meet thirty minutes before the meeting, and go over the case.

Yeah, that's not anywhere near enough time, and as joat mon said you get what you pay for. Beg and borrow money from whoever you can to get a solid attorney who will actually sit down with you before the day of the meeting and go over everything. Pawn whatever you can. Put it on a credit card if you have to and get a second job to pay it off. Do whatever it takes.

Even if right now they are only interested in you as a witness and not as a defendant, you want to be 100% sure nothing coming from that meeting with the prosecutor changes that. If you think it's bad right now coming up with money for just 1 meeting, how are you going to pay for one for the duration of a criminal trial? This isn't roll the dice and see poo poo, this is gently caress your life up forever poo poo. $1000 is well worth it to keep yourself out of the system. Because like it or not, the system is stacked against defendants, and it's even more stacked against the poor.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 20:53

excellentcoffee: Nov 1, 2007; Phantom

See, that's the thing, though. I have this meeting tomorrow. I just don't have enough time to find the money, then find another lawyer. What are my options at this point? And I mean that seriously, no goon sarcasm here. The only thing I can think of is using my college loans. :/

EDIT: I did call other lawyers, but with it being the weekend, who knows if they could get a hold of me before the meeting. Also, is there any website I could use to find out if this lawyer I have already is any good?

EDIT 2: Would it be a bad idea to request a rescheduling with the prosecutor? And should I mention that I'm getting an attorney? Also, would it be a bad idea to ask what our meeting would be about?

excellentcoffee fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Mar 21, 2010

# ? Mar 21, 2010 20:59

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

excellentcoffee posted:

I just don't have enough time to find the money, then find another lawyer. What are my options at this point? And I mean that seriously, no goon sarcasm here. The only thing I can think of is using my college loans. :/

Do you have family that can help? This is not the time to be too proud or too embarrassed to tell your family you need help.
Unless you've been disowned, your folks love you and don't want bad things to happen to you.
Better for you to feel ashamed for a year than to be in prison for ten. [/melodrama]
But seriously, call your folks.

excellentcoffee posted:

Also, is there any website I could use to find out if this lawyer I have already is any good?

Not really.
http://www.martindale.com/ is a search /ranking service for attorneys where rankings are based on subscribing to the service and meeting certain guidelines for being ranked. Not all attorneys subscribe, so not all of them are on there.

excellentcoffee posted:

EDIT 2: Would it be a bad idea to request a rescheduling with the prosecutor?
And should I mention that I'm getting an attorney?
Also, would it be a bad idea to ask what our meeting would be about?

NO. It would not be a bad idea to reschedule. Do it.
Coupled with your telling her that your scared and out of your league and comfort zone, saying you want to talk with an attorney is reasonable.
Asking what the meeting will be about is a fair question, so long as you have the presence of mind to keep your mouth shut and not try to explain when she tells you what she wants to know.

# ? Mar 21, 2010 22:31

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

excellentcoffee posted:

See, that's the thing, though. I have this meeting tomorrow. I just don't have enough time to find the money, then find another lawyer. What are my options at this point? And I mean that seriously, no goon sarcasm here. The only thing I can think of is using my college loans. :/

EDIT: I did call other lawyers, but with it being the weekend, who knows if they could get a hold of me before the meeting. Also, is there any website I could use to find out if this lawyer I have already is any good?

EDIT 2: Would it be a bad idea to request a rescheduling with the prosecutor? And should I mention that I'm getting an attorney? Also, would it be a bad idea to ask what our meeting would be about?

You mention student loans - does you school have a legal aid department for students? I know that my undergrad did, and that they would make referrals to lawyers in the area that they thought had good reputations. At least then you'll have somewhat of a better idea if your money is going to the right person.

Alaemon posted:

Based on my time with the Innocence Project, let me say that you should NEVER rely on this as the deciding factor in your interactions with law enforcement. You may feel that you haven't done anything wrong and so have nothing to hide, but that isn't always the case.

That's fair. I shouldn't have even asked the question, I just kind of stream-of-consciousnessed it in there. I suspect that if he's being called in to meet with the prosecutor, and he testified in front of the grand jury, he's probably going to be one of the prosecution's witnesses, but he absolutely should have a lawyer before he talks the the prosecuting attorney.

Incredulous Red fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Mar 21, 2010

# ? Mar 21, 2010 22:44

excellentcoffee: Nov 1, 2007; Phantom

I checked out the website. The attorney I'm looking at is ranked at 3/5.

What also worries me is that an investigator was the one to plan this meeting. He told me the defendants were in jail, but I've checked the inmate list and can't find them. He then told me that she wanted to meet with me either Monday or Wednesday to go over my statement. I took Monday.

I spoke with my father, and he just told me that I don't need a lawyer until I'm arrested. He told me the court should provide me one for free if I ask anyways. He then told me the Miranda rights that were read to me were only for court and not for any other meeting. He's wrong, isn't he?

What I plan to do;

1) Call the prosecutor
2) Tell her I wish to reschedule.
3) Ask her what the meeting is about.
4) Find a lawyer. I'll drive around town and find one. Visit the college and see what they can do.

Does that sound good?

Also, if any of these questions could get me in trouble, just let me know and I'll stop. I'm trying to stray from giving names and details of the case, and I'm just hoping I can find some good advice.

excellentcoffee fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Mar 21, 2010

# ? Mar 21, 2010 23:24

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

excellentcoffee posted:

I spoke with my father, and he just told me that I don't need a lawyer until I'm arrested.

He's wrong.

excellentcoffee posted:

He told me the court should provide me one for free if I ask anyways.

Only 1)after you've been arrested, or 2)if you're in a custodial interrogation (i.e. a 'meeting' where you're not free to leave)

excellentcoffee posted:

He then told me the Miranda rights that were read to me were only for court and not for any other meeting. He's wrong, isn't he?

It depends on how you look at the question.
The prosecutor is not required to read you a Miranda warning at the meeting. (unless you're not free to leave) In that respect, your dad's right.

The inalienable constitutional rights mentioned in the Miranda case are inalienable constitutional rights. You have those rights all the time. You can invoke those rights at any time.
The Miranda case did not establish or create those rights, it just said that law enforcement has to remind (warn) people that they already have those rights.
In the sense that you don't have those rights at this meeting, your dad's wrong.

In the sense of "If I go to the meeting and they don't read me my Miranda rights and I confess all over myself, can they use what I said against me?"
Yes.

excellentcoffee posted:

What I plan to do;

Does that sound good?

yes

excellentcoffee posted:

Also, if any of these questions could get me in trouble, just let me know and I'll stop. I'm trying to stray from giving names and details of the case, and I'm just hoping I can find some good advice.

No, the questions are OK.
Yes, we're curious, and yes, you're doing the right thing in not telling us.

joat mon fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Mar 22, 2010

# ? Mar 22, 2010 00:21

uG: Apr 23, 2003; by Ralp

Whats the procedure when you plead to a misdemeanor in circuit court in Michigan? Will the circuit court judge end up sentencing me (at the sentencing date of coarse)? Will my sentencing be in front of a district court judge? Will I have to also plead to the district court judge and then get sentenced by said judge?

# ? Mar 22, 2010 03:03

Alaemon: Jan 4, 2009; Proctors are guardians of the sanctity and integrity of legal education, therefore they are responsible for the nourishment of the soul.

uG posted:

Whats the procedure when you plead to a misdemeanor in circuit court in Michigan? Will the circuit court judge end up sentencing me (at the sentencing date of coarse)? Will my sentencing be in front of a district court judge? Will I have to also plead to the district court judge and then get sentenced by said judge?

Start your research at People v Pierce, 158 Mich App 113.

I cannot speak to your circuit -- I do not know if procedures are uniform in this regard. However, I recently read a pair of Pre-Sentence Investigations for defendants with multiple felonies who'd plead down to misdemeanors. My judge (circuit) handled the plea and the sentencing.

# ? Mar 22, 2010 05:17

excellentcoffee: Nov 1, 2007; Phantom

I found an attorney. Paid the retainment fee, and we spent a good couple of hours talking about the case. He contacted the prosecutor and confirmed that I am being looked at as a suspect, and possibly a defendant down the road. I find out at the next grand jury meeting this Thursday.

So, better question is, if I do get a felony, do time, am I completely and utterly hosed for the rest of my life?

# ? Mar 22, 2010 19:52

JudicialRestraints: Oct 26, 2007; Are you a LAWYER? Because I'll have you know I got GOOD GRADES in LAW SCHOOL last semester. Don't even try to argue THE LAW with me.

excellentcoffee posted:

So, better question is, if I do get a felony, do time, am I completely and utterly hosed for the rest of my life?

Unless you can get your record sealed, yes.

Don't get a felony. Hopefully you managed to get a good lawyer!

# ? Mar 22, 2010 19:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 16:33

excellentcoffee: Nov 1, 2007; Phantom

So far, he seems good. The firm does have some good ratings online, but I don't know if that pertains to all lawyers or just a few.

But what would a good lawyer do in this situation, when his client is a suspect and could be facing indictment?

excellentcoffee fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Mar 22, 2010

# ? Mar 22, 2010 20:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›1197 »